Ex parte BUCKLEY et al. - Page 1

                                THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                                                
              The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for                            
              publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                   
                                                                                       Paper No.  21                        
                                UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                   
                                    BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                      
                                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                                          
                             Ex parte RANDALL G. BUCKLEY, BARRY R. BRESLAU and                                              
                                                   SHAWN P. TANSEY                                                          
                                                 Appeal No. 1997-1298                                                       
                                               Application No. 08/227,158                                                   
                                                        ON BRIEF                                                            
              Before DOWNEY, WILLIAM F. SMITH, and ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judges,                                     
              DOWNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                          
                                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                                         
                     This decision involves an appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 134 from the final rejection of                     

              claims 22 and 23, all the claims pending in the application.                                                  
                     Claim 22 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:                         
                     22.     A polymer latex recovered from whitewater emulsion by contacting the                           
              whitewater emulsion with an ultrafiltration membrane under laminar flow conditions, to                        
              remove water from the whitewater emulsion, wherein the whitewater is generated by                             
              diluting a polymer latex product, and wherein the polymer latex so recovered may be                           
              blended into the product at a level of at least 5 weight percent with no deleterious effect                   


Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007